Ashlee spoke to LOF about the differences between U.S. and Canadian trademark law, intellectual property protection for fashion designs in Canada, and recent fashion law developments up north (all hyperlinks courtesy of LOF):

LOF: The emergence of "fashion law" as a unique discipline is relatively recent in the U.S.Have Canadian law schools and attorneys begun to recognize "fashion law" as its own practice area?

AF: I think that the development of “fashion law” as its own niche has had more traction in the U.S., and is still very much in its infancy in Canada. There are far fewer law schools in Canada (not more than 20) and to my knowledge, fashion law is not part of the curriculum at any of those schools. Some law schools, such as Osgoode Hall Law School, my alma mater, have instituted programs that focus on intellectual property, which is a component of fashion law, but we have yet to see a specialization of "fashion law."

LOF: Could you give us an overview of the similarities and differences between Canadian and U.S. trademark law?

However, there are also pronounced differences. The United States’ adoption of a classification system under which additional filing fees of $325 (U.S.) are charged per class of goods/services (as opposed to Canada’s single filing fee for all goods/services) can be cost-prohibitive for some Canadian businesses seeking trademark protection as they enter into the U.S. market. Canada does not have an equivalent to the USPTO’s principal-versus-supplemental-register regime. Moreover, it is not possible to divide a trademark application in Canada. Canada is also not a signatory to the Madrid System, although there have been whisperings that Canada is looking to become a signatory. On a side note, it is my view that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office operates in a more business-like manner than its Canadian equivalent.

Canada has taken a conservative stance on the protection of non-traditional trademarks. The Canadian Trade-marks Office has maintained that a trademark must be visual in order to garner protection. Thus, sounds, smell and touch cannot be protected. The U.S. has taken a more liberal view of what can constitute a trademark.

AF: Yes, but there are limitations. It is possible to protect aspects of fashion designs through proper navigation of Canada’s intellectual property regime. However, there is a hesitation to grant a company exclusive IP rights in a useful article, as such a grant may impact competition in the marketplace. Thus, Canadian law imposes a system of checks and balances that guard against a degree of exclusivity that would stifle commercial development.

“Industrial design protection” is a useful but somewhat underutilized avenue in Canada. [Ed. Compare to U.S. design patents.] This type of protection covers the shape, configuration, pattern or ornamentation on an utilitarian article that is aesthetically appealing. Protection is not granted where the design is solely functional or where protection would impact any method of construction or manufacturing. Industrial design protection is only granted for 10 years and protection must be sought within 1 year of disclosure of the design. Industrial design protection is statutory; registration is required in order to obtain protection. Currently, dresses, pants and shirts are eligible for industrial design protection in Canada.

Although copyright protection extends to “works of artistic craftsmanship,” protection is limited when the article is “useful.”Further, no copyright protection is available to “non-useful” designs that are applied to “useful” articles produced in quantities greater than 50. This is obviously a low threshold for a typical fashion company. Thus, industrial design protection will usually be a more prudent avenue of protection for the fashion designer.

LOF: How much influence, if any, do U.S. court rulings on intellectual property exert over the direction of Canadian IP law?

AF: I think that there is always interest in what is happening in the U.S. Having attended a number of lectures by judges of Canada’s Federal Court, it is apparent that in addition to looking at legal developments in America, the judiciary also looks at developments in England and Australia, in particular.

LOF: What, if any, major fashion law developments are you seeing in Canada right now?

AF: Well, in August of last year, Louis Vuitton and Burberry launched an anti-counterfeiting suit against two producers and distributors in Vancouver and Toronto. The plaintiffs are seeking $3 million (Canadian) in damages for trademark and copyright infringement, which, if granted, would be Canada’s largest anti-counterfeiting damages award ever. [Ed. Since the interview, the plaintiffs in this case have been awarded $2.5 million.]

The Supreme Court of Canada also recently handed down a ruling on trademark law—the first since 2006. Although the decision, for the most part, seems to confirm some fundamental tenets of Canadian trade-marks law (i.e., Canada is a “first to use” jurisdiction, trademark protection extends throughout the country, etc.), some passages in the opinion have piqued trademark lawyers' interest in attempting to determine how the judiciary will deal with the intersection of trademark law and keyword advertising, an issue that has been extensively explored in the U.S., but not received much judicial consideration in Canada.

[The attorney behind LAW OF FASHION thanks Ashlee for taking the time to share her knowledge with us. For another fix, head on over to Ashlee's website, canadafashionlaw.com. Please note that any views expressed in this post are solely those of the person expressing such views. This post is for entertainment and informational purposes only, and does not constitute legal advice or create an attorney-client relationship among any individuals or entities.]

SITE TERMS OF USE

NOTHING IN THIS BLOG CONSTITUTES LEGAL ADVICE, and the information contained herein should never be used as a substitute for consulting a lawyer. Use of this blog does not form an attorney-client relationship among anyindividuals or entities. While the administrators of "LAW OF FASHION" endeavor to ensure the accuracy of all posts, and will promptly correct inaccuracies brought to their attention, no warranty is made as to the thoroughness or accuracy of any blog content. Users of this site release and hold harmless Charles Colman and all related individuals and entities for any information collected regarding visitors to this site or charlescolmanlaw.com, as well as for any harm resulting from visitors' use of this site or the material thereon.